Main Currents Of Marxism

1. Marxism's Golden Age: A Time of Intellectual Ferment

The period of the Second International (1889-1914) may be called without exaggeration the golden age of Marxism.

A period of growth and debate. The Second International era saw Marxism evolve from a relatively obscure doctrine into a powerful political force. This period was characterized by intense intellectual activity, with various interpretations and applications of Marxist theory emerging.

Diversity within the movement. Despite the dominance of Marxist thought, other socialist traditions persisted, and even within Marxism itself, there was no single, monolithic view. This led to lively debates and the development of different schools of thought.

• The influence of Marxism varied across Europe, being strongest in Germany and Central Europe, and weaker in Britain.
• Theorists and practical socialists engaged in discussions, blurring the lines between theory and practice.
• The intellectual caliber of party leaders was exceptionally high, fostering a culture of debate and critical thinking.

Marxism as a serious doctrine. Marxism was not just a political ideology but a serious intellectual force, respected even by its adversaries. This period saw the emergence of both staunch defenders and eminent critics of Marxist thought, contributing to its refinement and evolution.

2. Kautsky: The Architect of Orthodox Marxism

Kautsky was not orthodox in the sense of feeling obliged to defend every particular thought expressed by Marx or Engels, or of treating quotations from their works as arguments in themselves; indeed, no theoreticians of his generation were orthodox in this sense.

The embodiment of Marxist orthodoxy. Karl Kautsky was the leading figure in the theoretical development of Marxism during the Second International. He defended it against external influences, popularized it, and applied it to historical analysis.

Scientistic and deterministic worldview. Kautsky's Marxism was heavily influenced by Darwinism and a belief in universal laws. He saw human history as a continuation of natural history, governed by the same principles of adaptation and necessity.

• He emphasized the "natural necessity" of social processes.
• He viewed consciousness as a biological tool for survival, not a unique human attribute.
• He believed in the unlimited capacity of science to synthesize knowledge.

Revolution as an inevitable process. Kautsky believed that capitalism was destined to collapse due to its internal contradictions, but he also emphasized the need for the proletariat to organize and seize political power. He saw the revolution as a necessary and inevitable outcome of economic laws, but he did not define the exact conditions for its occurrence.

3. Luxemburg: Revolution Through Spontaneity and Critique

The most urgent task was to free the proletariat from the state of spiritual dependence on the bourgeoisie in which it had been placed by its time-serving leaders.

Revolutionary left-wing theorist. Rosa Luxemburg was a key figure in the revolutionary left wing of German social democracy. She was a fierce critic of both revisionism and orthodox centrism, emphasizing the importance of spontaneous mass action.

Theory of accumulation and capitalist collapse. Luxemburg argued that capitalism could only function by exploiting non-capitalist markets. As capitalism expanded, it would inevitably destroy these markets, leading to its own economic collapse.

• She believed that capitalism could not exist as a "pure" system on a global scale.
• She saw imperialism as a necessary consequence of capitalism's need for expansion.
• She emphasized the economic inevitability of capitalism's downfall.

Spontaneity and mass action. Luxemburg believed that the revolution would arise from the spontaneous action of the working class, not from the directives of a centralized party. She criticized Lenin's ultra-centralist policies and his distrust of the workers' movement. She also believed that the proletariat must free itself from spiritual dependence on the bourgeoisie.

4. Bernstein: The Revisionist Challenge to Marxist Orthodoxy

The goal is nothing, the movement is everything.

The father of revisionism. Eduard Bernstein challenged the core tenets of Marxist theory, arguing that capitalism was not on the verge of collapse and that socialism could be achieved through gradual reforms.

Critique of Marxist predictions. Bernstein questioned Marx's predictions about the concentration of capital, the pauperization of the working class, and the inevitability of revolution. He argued that the middle class was not disappearing and that the workers' conditions were improving.

• He rejected the idea of a single, violent revolution.
• He emphasized the importance of parliamentary action and social reforms.
• He believed that socialism could be introduced gradually within capitalist society.

Emphasis on ethical socialism. Bernstein argued that Marxism should be supplemented by Kantian ethics, emphasizing the importance of moral values and the gradual improvement of society. He believed that the socialist movement should focus on practical goals and not on a distant, utopian vision of the future.

5. Jaures: A Moral and Humanistic Vision of Socialism

To Jaures, socialism, and Marxism as the modern theoretical expression of socialism, was above all a moral notion, a value-concept, the highest expression of man’s eternal longing for freedom and justice.

Socialism as a moral imperative. Jean Jaures viewed socialism as a moral ideal, a manifestation of humanity's longing for freedom and justice. He saw Marxism as a modern expression of this ideal, not as a purely scientific or deterministic theory.

Reconciliation and synthesis. Jaures sought to reconcile diverse philosophical and political traditions, emphasizing the unity of human values and the continuity of history. He believed that socialism was not a break with the past but a culmination of humanity's moral and intellectual progress.

• He was a universal conciliator, seeking common ground between different viewpoints.
• He believed in the gradual increase of justice, equality, and freedom within the present system.
• He saw socialism as a development of republicanism, not its negation.

Emphasis on moral action. Jaures believed that socialists should take an active part in all struggles involving universal moral values, even if the victims were members of the ruling class. He saw the party's moral commitment as a realization of socialism in the midst of bourgeois society.

6. Lafargue: Marxism, Hedonism, and the Right to Be Lazy

The instinct for co-operation within the species is what, in the human race, we call the moral law or the voice of conscience.

Marxism and the pursuit of pleasure. Paul Lafargue, Marx's son-in-law, presented a unique interpretation of Marxism that emphasized the importance of pleasure and leisure. He was a popularizer of Marxism, not an independent thinker.

Critique of the work ethic. Lafargue argued that the capitalist system had instilled a false belief in the value of work, which he saw as a curse. He advocated for the "right to be lazy," believing that socialism would liberate humanity from the drudgery of labor.

• He saw work as a source of misery and exploitation.
• He believed that technology could reduce labor to a minimum.
• He envisioned a socialist society where people could enjoy leisure and develop their personal aspirations.

Naturalistic interpretation of Marxism. Lafargue's Marxism was heavily influenced by naturalism and a belief in unchanging biological instincts. He saw human beings as no different from animals in their cognitive, moral, and productive capacities.

7. Labriola: Marxism as a Method, Not a Dogma

The main lines of Marxist doctrine as thus formulated were, however, open to important differences of interpretation, and in certain conditions these led to the formation, within Marxism, of political movements and theoretical positions that were radically hostile to one another.

Marxism as a tool for analysis. Antonio Labriola viewed Marxism as a method of historical investigation, not as a rigid dogma. He emphasized the importance of applying Marxist principles to the study of social phenomena, but he did not treat it as a closed system.

Emphasis on historical context. Labriola stressed the importance of understanding social phenomena within their specific historical context. He believed that Marxism should be used to analyze past events and social conflicts, not to impose a predetermined schema on history.

• He was interested in the concrete details of history, not abstract generalizations.
• He saw Marxism as a way of understanding social processes, not as a set of fixed rules.
• He was critical of those who treated Marxism as a self-sufficient system.

Openness to other traditions. Labriola was not afraid to draw on other philosophical traditions, including Hegelianism and Darwinism, to enrich his understanding of Marxism. He believed that Marxism should be open to new ideas and perspectives.

8. Krzywicki: Marxism as a Tool for Sociological Inquiry

The main lines of Marxist doctrine as thus formulated were, however, open to important differences of interpretation, and in certain conditions these led to the formation, within Marxism, of political movements and theoretical positions that were radically hostile to one another.

Marxism as a sociological instrument. Ludwik Krzywicki used Marxism as a tool for sociological inquiry, not as a rigid dogma. He was interested in understanding social phenomena through the lens of Marxist theory, but he did not seek to prove its absolute correctness.

Emphasis on empirical research. Krzywicki's work was characterized by a strong emphasis on empirical research and a willingness to engage with diverse sources of knowledge. He was interested in a wide range of social phenomena, including primitive societies, religion, and art.

• He was a prolific writer, covering a vast range of topics.
• He was a keen observer of social life, both past and present.
• He was interested in the social and psychological aspects of human behavior.

Rejection of reductionism. Krzywicki rejected simplistic interpretations of historical materialism, emphasizing the complexity of social processes and the interplay of various factors. He did not believe that all social phenomena could be reduced to economic causes.

9. Brzozowski: Marxism as Historical Subjectivism

Attempts were made, by Sorel and Brzozowski among others, to distinguish the materialism of Engels from Marxian anthropology, but these were not in the main stream of Marxism and played no decisive role.

Marxism and the power of human will. Stanislaw Brzozowski offered a unique interpretation of Marxism that emphasized the role of human will and collective subjectivity in shaping history. He was a highly original and unorthodox thinker.

Rejection of determinism. Brzozowski rejected the deterministic aspects of Marxism, arguing that human beings were not merely instruments of historical processes but active agents capable of creating their own destiny. He emphasized the importance of human action and the power of collective will.

• He saw history as a product of human activity, not as a predetermined process.
• He believed that human beings were responsible for shaping their own future.
• He emphasized the role of collective subjectivism in historical change.

Emphasis on cultural creation. Brzozowski believed that human beings created their own world through labor and that culture was a product of this creative process. He sought to interpret Marx in terms of voluntarism and collective subjectivism.

10. Austro-Marxism: Kantian Ethics and the Limits of Determinism

The Austro-Marxists produced important theoretical works which, for the most part, were looked on askance by the orthodox, as they refused to treat Marxism as an all-embracing system and had no hesitation in combining it with other sources: in particular (though they were not alone in this) they sought to incorporate Kantian moral and epistemological categories into the Marxist philosophy of history.

Combining Marxism and Kantianism. The Austro-Marxists sought to integrate Kantian ethics and epistemology into Marxist theory. They rejected the idea that Marxism was a closed, self-contained system and were open to drawing on other philosophical traditions.

Critique of determinism. The Austro-Marxists questioned the deterministic aspects of Marxism, arguing that human beings were not merely passive instruments of historical forces. They emphasized the importance of human agency and the role of moral values in shaping social change.

• They sought to reconcile historical materialism with Kantian ethics.
• They believed that Marxism could be enriched by other philosophical traditions.
• They rejected the idea that Marxism was a purely scientific or deterministic theory.

Emphasis on democratic values. The Austro-Marxists were strong advocates of democratic principles and believed that socialism could only be achieved through democratic means. They were critical of authoritarian forms of socialism.

11. Lenin: The Rise of Bolshevism and the Dictatorship of the Party

Lenin’s attacks were answered by Bogdanov, Bazarov

The architect of Bolshevism. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was characterized by a strong emphasis on the role of the party as a vanguard and the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat. He was a highly pragmatic and politically astute leader.

Party as a vanguard. Lenin believed that the working class was incapable of developing socialist consciousness on its own and that it needed to be guided by a centralized, disciplined party of professional revolutionaries. He saw the party as the embodiment of the proletariat's true interests.

• He emphasized the importance of theory and ideology in the revolutionary struggle.
• He believed that socialist consciousness had to be instilled into the workers' movement from outside.
• He saw the party as the vanguard of the proletariat, leading it towards revolution.

Dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin interpreted the dictatorship of the proletariat as a specific form of government, opposed to democratic forms. He believed that the proletariat needed to seize political power by force and suppress all opposition. He also believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a necessary stage on the road to socialism.

12. The Fortunes of Leninism: From Theory to State Ideology

The summer of 1914 saw the beginning of a process whose consequences are still with us and whose final outcome cannot be foreseen.

The legacy of Leninism. Leninism, despite its origins in Marxist theory, became a distinct political ideology that shaped the course of the twentieth century. It was characterized by a strong emphasis on the role of the party, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the use of violence to achieve revolutionary goals.

Monopolization of Marxism. Leninism came to be seen as the only true interpretation of Marxism, and all other forms of socialism were condemned as revisionist or opportunistic. This led to the suppression of dissenting voices and the creation of a monolithic political system.

• Leninism became the official ideology of the Soviet Union and other communist states.
• It was used to justify the suppression of dissent and the consolidation of power.
• It was exported to other parts of the world, often with disastrous consequences.

The collapse of the Second International. The outbreak of World War I exposed the deep divisions within the socialist movement and led to the collapse of the Second International. This event marked a turning point in the history of Marxism and the socialist movement.

Last updated: May 17, 2025